May 17, 2007

Try this: Call a TV station and tell them that you know the Antichrist is already on earth and is an adult Jewish male. See how far you get. Then try the same thing and add that you are the Rev. Jim-Bob Vermin. "Why, Reverend, come right on the show!" What a fool Don Imus was. If he had paid the paltry few bucks to make himself a certified clergyman, he could be jeering and sneering to the present hour.

Yeah, well, I saw you on TV jeering and sneering over the death of a man. How did you get on?

I love the way Anderson Cooper preens about how CNN presents all sides of a story and brings on Hitchens to piss about "the empty life of this ugly little charlatan." Okay, fine, Anderson, but I want to see all your death stories spiced up like this from now on.

138 comments:

It's amazing to see the people who hated Falwell so much acting just like him.

I thought what he said and did in the name of Christ was loathesome, and it's certainly fair and proper to point that out as part of his legacy. But there's something a little more than unseemly in beaming and gloating over someone like Falwell's death. He was a misguided and often hateful person who left in American spirituality a legacy of bitterness and hatred where there should have been compassion and love. He left Christian belief in the United States in a poorer state than he found it, and alienated a lot of people in whom he could have found converts. But, despite all of this, he wasn't an evil person of the sort whose death deserves praise. In Falwell Hitchens should see a soul-mate. In style rather than substance, they're almost exactly alike.

Speaking of the Antichrist: Twice in the last couple of years a couple of guys showed up at my house wanting to paint the housenumber on the curb for $5. I said, sure, but they would have to paint "666" instead, in order to help keep the Baptists away.

Neither of them would do it! Next time I'll have to raise the offer gradually to see what they think their eternal souls are worth!

I want to see all your death stories spiced up like this from now on. Falwell is a hated by a large minority in this country. If CNN had been all flowers and weeping widows for Falwell, they would have been accused of being unfair or completely deluded. Even as a liberal, I'd understand some of the same reaction when Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton or Michael Moore kick the bucket. However, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it is pretty bad when Larry Flint is an example of class compared to some.

Thank you, Ann, for calling out CNN. We'll see if Cooper means what he says when the next famous liberal dies.

Every time I hear a liberal talk about how the news served up by CNN, the networks, the NYTimes, et al is NOT slanted even a little to the left, I want to find a way to make certain that he or she loses all credibility with their employer, their family, their associations - because he or she has just proven that they can't be considered an honest person.

The only liberal reporter that I have any respect for is George Stephanopoulus on ABC. During a debate on Meet the Press when Stephanopoulus was still associated with the Clinton White House, Russert commented that the level anti-Clinton hated was unprecedented in the Presidency. Russert softballed that Reagan was not disdained as much while President. Stephanopulus had balls: he interjected that Russert "was wrong" "The hatred" from the left for Reagan was "just as strong and just as wrong" as that perceived about Clinton. Instead of letting one pass for his side, he told the truth.

I wonder if CNN gave David Duke airtime when Coretta Scott King died? Probably not.

A better question is -- will they have Klan spokesmen on to give the eulogy when David Duke dies? Or will they have Duke's critics on, instead?

Falwell, like Duke, was an evil man with a diseased mind. There is nothing wrong with criticizing him now that he's dead, and nothing wrong with condemning those people who are now attempting to sugar-coat his legacy.

I see the same ad hominem attacks on Christopher Hitchens over at hot air...You all prove Hitchens point (though you realize it not). You have nothing to say over the very specific points that he made on the loathsome toad of Falwell.

Instead, you berate him for speaking ill of him at all precisely because he was a "reverend". So the lesson is, "if you're a reverened you can say god caused 9/11...and that fags will burn for eternity in hell." and it's Hitchens who's decried as the "bigot".

What bothers me about all these posts is that they assume Ms. Althouse agrees with them, I doubt it highly and if she does then I really don't see how she could call herself anything but part of the "religious right", which would be preposterous....

“homosexuals are brute beasts...part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.”

“(re: 9/11 attacks) "...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."”

I believe that global warming is a myth. And so, therefore, I have no conscience problems at all and I'm going to buy a Suburban next time.

“The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews”

Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America.

Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.

The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.

AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.

Pogo,SAT scores aside, you do know that Hitracist and chens is a journalist and Duke an ex-leader of the KKK...right?

Comparing the two, as to their opinions, is asinine at best...and suggesting a vowed racist like Duke should be able to discuss his views on a leading black leader's life or death tells me you're either a racist yourself or just plain dumb.

do you mean to say that no one has AIDS because they engaged in gay sex?

that 9/11 was the result of America behaving badly,

I seem to recall that he had to apologize for that hideous remark. Are you saying that apologies are meaningless? All apologies?

that Jews were doomed

Where do you find that quote?

and that if you weren't a born again Christian you would burn in hell.

Jesus Christ speaking to Nicodemus (John 3)"Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."If you hate Falwell on that one, then you better sharpen your knife for Martin Luther King, Jr., C.S. Lewis, Douglas MacArthur, Rosa Parks and a couple hundred million other believers in the historic Christian Faith.

"I would never blame any human being except the terrorists, and if I left that impression with gays or lesbians or anyone else, I apologize.

This is the typical half-assed non-apology you see from public figures. Start off with a bald-faced lie, denying you said what you plainly said, then apologize to anyone who got the wrong "impression". A denial of having done anything wrong in the first place is NOT an apology!

Are you saying that apologies are meaningless?

Genuine apologies have some value. If Falwell had said "I said a horrible and hateful things about my fellow Americans, and I beg God to forgive me for doing it" I'd have been somewhat inclined to take him seriously.

But of course apologizing for a remark does nothing to counter the insight that remark gives into your worth as a person. If I said "It's filthy half-breed niggers like Obama that are screwing up America" I couldn't just say "gosh, I'm really really sorry for saying that" and expect people to leave it at that. Falwell's remarks, made over the course of decades, revealed him to be a fundamentally evil human being. He can't just apologize for occasionally letting that inner nature show and expect warm fuzzy feelings in response.

b,"Jesus Christ speaking to Nicodemus (John 3)"Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."

If you hate Falwell on that one, then you better sharpen your knife for Martin Luther King, Jr., C.S. Lewis, Douglas MacArthur, Rosa Parks and a couple hundred million other believers in the historic Christian Faith.

I'm anthiest so I think it's all bullshit...and as for Falwell, I can't "hate" someone I do not know.

I merely believe he was a disgusting prick who sucked idiots like YOU into believing he was some kind of fantastic Christian.

B: Especially since I wasn't really interested in making a direct connection between those two groups of people. The idea wasn't to point out implied hypocrisy so much as to point out that according to the "If we behave like them, we've won" hypothesis, Jerry Fallwell is quite the winner today.

He can't just apologize for occasionally letting that inner nature show and expect warm fuzzy feelings in response.

Precisely. Genuine apology is followed by a change of behavior or action.

Just saying "whooops sorry!" does not do anything.

I find the fascination for issuing apologies pretty inane, to be honest. A verbal 'oopsie' is meaningless, and the people who are satisfied with such things should know they are just being pandered too.

Since you seem to be newbie at posting comments, let me give you some friendly advice.

1) You have to address what the person wrote. For example, I responded to each of your points in one of your posts, exactly to what you wrote.

2) You can hate someone you don't know, lucky. It's how most of the political left in this country exists.

3) You may think that you know something about me in regards to Falwell - but guess what - you don't. Your little comment is so immature that there is no way you can be over 18, unless of course mental retardation is involved - I'm serious; my wife works in the school system with the mentally handicapped, so I am well aware of the signs.

Not defending Falwell at all. I just don't feel the need to dance on his grave just yet.

The problem, Pogo, is this: the Christian right wasn't willing to condemn Falwell when he was alive. You're not willing to condemn him now that he's dead, at least not "just yet".

When, exactly, are you planning to grow some balls? When Falwell's been dead so long that nobody even remembers he was a major figure in the American Christian conservative movement? You're not willing to confront evil when its alive, not willing to criticize it after its gone -- when, exactly, do you plan to do something?

b,Thanks for the posting insights...I can tell you have plenty of experience in such matters...now if you could just get yourself a job.

And when you say: "You can hate someone you don't know, lucky. It's how most of the political left in this country exists."

This kind of comment illustrates the fact that you're nothing more than a stereotypical right wing (dittohead?) who throws out whatever first comes to mind, always resorting to the usual intimation that anyone who is liberal or disagrees with the moron currently residing in the White House is a traitor or un-American or doesn't really understand politics...but merely "hates" little Georgie.

I suggest you, Pogo and dewave drag your heads out of Bush's ass and try to understand what he and the current administration has done to our country's worldwide reputation.

*Then again, you'd have to think independantly, versus the usual group suckfest among your right wing buddies on this thread.

Instead of listening to Rush, Bill, Sean, Ann and the other hate mongers, why not try reading a fucking book, preferably by an author who actually knows something ("Fiasco" by Ricks?) for a change.

My comment about the left being hateful, while completely supportable, was meant tongue in cheek.

You are new to this. You obviously hate the President and his political point of view. There are places to go revel in that and call people that you disagree with all the hateful, unoriginal names that you want. Please enjoy them to the fullest.

This blog is for people of good will that disagree - yes sometimes heatedly - but not a place to get off your orgasm of hate for those that oppose you - that is a waste of time, as many have found.

Here is how it will work if you don't stop with the childish name calling. First, you will find some that will respond. You may get a few to applaud you (highly doubtful at this juncture). Eventually no one will respond to your comments, because, well, again this is not like the one-sided lemming following drivel that you have confined yourself to. And then you will slink away, never to stain Althouse again.

I myself had several years of fun in comments on the leftwing blogs. But after attempts at engaging, I grew tired of the lowest common denominator - the hate-filled response. Nobody grows, nobody learns - a zero sum game.

Althouse has garnered more intelligent writing than almost any other blog out there. There is a basic cost-of-admission. Rant if you want, but be civil about it, and try to at least contribute something worthwhile. Otherwise, you are just practicing self-abuse out in the open. And no one, even those that agree politically with you, care to watch.

As for Bush, I don't "hate" the man (I think I've mentioned this in a number of previous postings), I merely think he and his administration are inept, corrupt and reflect poorly on our country's reputation.

*Oh, and thanks again for the lesson in posting etiquette, I always get a kick out of hearing from people like yourself...who also think it's okay to call those on the left..."hateful."

"Just asking for a clarification: are you saying that the entire christian conservative movement was evil?"

This was not addressed to me...but IMO, the blending of Christianity into politics has done more to harm Christianity than help it. More people today are probably more turned off to Christianity simply because of Falwell's and the Religious Right's incessant desire to have Government define "values" rather than individuals.

I think he spoke for some people, just not very many, and I really didn't think him important enough to pay no nevermind to.

Ah, as I predicted earlier thread -- the whitewashing beings. Falwell? Not an important guy. Really didn't have much influence. No need to distance ourselves from such a minor figure.

In reality, Falwell's Moral Majority had 6.5 million adult members at its peak -- approximately one out of every ten Christian conservatives in America. And of course Falwell's influence extended far beyond that, even today.

The real reason the Christian right never got around to condemning Falwell for comments like his "AIDS is God's punishment" remarks isn't that he was a minor, ignorable figure -- its that the overwhelming majority of the Christian right agreed with him. Even today, nearly half of Christian conservatives think that.

Which is why every Republican politician felt the need to paint Falwell as a positive force in American politics when he died this week. He and Pat Robertson are the Republican Party's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson -- they may embarrass the more rational members of the party, but the base loves them.

...the Christian right wasn't willing to condemn Falwell when he was alive. You're not willing to condemn him now that he's dead, at least not "just yet".

Why should he be condemned? He was right most of the time.

And besides, unlike those maniacally laughing and dancing at his death, Falwell's objectionable statements directed at those with whom he disagreed were borne out of love, Christian love, and concern for their eternal soul. His detractors? They just flat hate. Bigtime difference.

I haven't read through all the comments yet, so I apologize if anyone else mentioned this:

You fail to leave out the information that immediately before Hitchens came on, they had one of Falwell's cronies (I forget his name, but he was the former director of one of Falwell's organizations) heaping glowing praise on the man. When the person is as widely hated by as many people as he is, what do you expect? They presented both extreme opinions - from Falwell's crony that he was a perfect saint, and from Hitchens that he was an evil man. The truth is he is definitely way between - A deluded, ignorant, bigoted, but sincere man who did help some people (those he agreed with).

I hate Falwell for the simple reason that he (like you, apparently) had no capacity for love, empathy, or moral reasoning -- just blind obedience to his vision of a warrior god who reveled in the slaughter of any who opposed him. This is why he could smilingly assert that it was a good thing that millions of people were dying from AIDS-related illnesses -- because the "love" he felt was a love of profound evil. The enthusiasm in his voice -- the joy, even -- when he spoke of the deaths of unbelievers was a scary thing to behold.

On a side note, I'll be curious to see if any of the local religious-right commenters who've been swearing up and down that Falwell didn't speak for them will be stopping by to correct Zeb's "Falwell was right most of the time" claim, and perhaps explain these alleged major differences between Falwell and the mainstream of Christian conservatism.

Jerry Falwell, like Martin Luther King, was a man that helped bring tens of millions of people disenfranchised into the political process and gained them rights both parties had ignored.

Falwell had some despicable personal traits and beliefs.

So did Martin Luther King. Plagarism, decades of debauchery and drinking&drugs with willing women and prostitutes. Ghost-written speeches. A record of violently beating prostitutes, then paying them off.(J Edgar Hoover, a perv himself who would know one, called King's private activities those of a world-class degenerate, one of the worst the FBI ever investigated) Misuse of SCLC funds. Flirtation with Communism. Threats that if cities did not do what he wanted, the alternative would be "angry violent Negroes" seeing King failed - burning everything. Robert Kennedy and Katzenbach as AGs, approved Kings wiretapping as a Soviet stooge and due to suspected ties to violent black agitators he coordinated activities with.

Liberals ignore King's FBI file is so bad, so embarassing, it was put under Government seal for 50 years after his death.

*****************Both Falwell and MLK were reverends that had great political impact, great charisma, and great flaws in their beliefs and personal lives.

One has been given the "Lenin Treatment" - above criticism, streets and statues abounding, mausoleum and home State Sanctioned memorials, their own "special day" no other countryman merits. His relatives revered.

The other gets the liberal and MSM opposite "special treatment". Hitchen's frantic denounciation can be seen as his own desperate way of getting back in swank and influential Leftist salons after years of being Bush's pet whore and apologist on the Left.

Go figure.

It took the Russians 60 years to summon up the guts to look at Lenin honestly.

Jerry Falwell, like Martin Luther King, was a man that helped bring tens of millions of people disenfranchised into the political process and gained them rights both parties had ignored.

That is complete horseshit.

Blacks were disenfranchised -- they were, in most of the South, not ALLOWED to vote.

Christian conservatives who lacked a centralized political body representing their interests were "disorganized", not "disenfranchised". The two words are not synonymous. White Protestant fundamentalists have been voting for hundreds of years.

Heck, they're pretty much the same folks who disenfranchised the black people in the first place. :/

Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I agree with Pogo that the media (need I say left wing media?) built Falwell up as a boogey man, way beyond his actual influence, to make conservatives look bad. And, as much as I like Hitchens, I think it's unseemly to dance on someone's grave.

Herebelow are two communications -from young and pretty women. Both want to get off my email list...but I will not remove them. For women must learn and re-learn the truths of our present reality.Yesterday's (#2), I got from Natalie Hamm -and my reply to her lies therein, as with Chase (#1). Of course,I already mentioned Chase...but at the time,I thought "Chase" was a man and not a young and pretty lady. So...Right now I'm going to combine the two requests and analyse them with some further instruction and comment.Chase says " Nobody really needs to know about you or your condition ". As mine is " the human condition " -somewhat more excessively than most,of course- I think she is wrong ( see below ). Chase also says she " finds it all a bit offensive ( and she says she ) thinks ( that I am ) crazy ". The truth and/or reality is often " offensive " and " crazy ".Natalie,on the other hand, merely says " ridicu- lous ".

Now,as I see it,I've got a slight problem. As a Traumatic Brain Injury survivor ( along with millions of others in the USA and throughout the world ),I have been " graced " with many -and continuing- disabili- ties,including hypersexuality. In order to live as a human being,I've found that I have to live beside my disabilities ( which are particular to TBI survivors and often go beyond your normal paranormal abilities and talents such as PSI and PK ) and try to minimise their negative effects. And this is so with my hyper- sexuality as well.Imagine it as another person within my mind (me) who watches what my mind -and body- does when a pretty young ( or old ) lady ( and what female is ever not pretty ) passes by...Anyhow,with my stiff dick punching between the pubes of a pretty lady at that particular(g?)spot which releases lubrication guiding my tookus down to the proper hole ( the vagina ),ecstasy begins.Next comes pumping up and down until " the stars and the rain " ( a Chinese/Japanese expression ) occurs.Of course,in the interim,I might also be riding prone and flopping like a fish until the climax occurs ( and at every flop waves of ecstasy suffuse my body ) until the climax when I am (was) thrust into another dimen- sion,an altered state of consciousness. On some occa-sions I have been known to bellow like a waterbuffaloso all people within a quarter of a mile heard ( that is why they have such heavy curtains in whore houses,I think; Hong Kong,Seoul [Korea].... ).If Natalie or Chase thinks this is not " normal " or " ridiculous ",I refer them to that ditzy dame MaureenDowd -NYTimes columnist today who wrote about the new French President Nicholas Sarkozy,his former rival Segolene Royal and their marriage problems- and Patti Waldmeir -who writes the column Legal Counsel for theFinancial Times and who comments about " Sex,Work and Wolfowitz ".Apparently Nicky has been playing around with " the help " and his wife caught them ( what does anyone think will happen if Yonkers City Councilman Liam McLoughlin's new wife finds him on the floor with girdle-wearing Sherry [presumably she'd take her girdle off for a tryst]). As for Segolene ( who looks damn fine in a bikini for an old broad ),she and the father of their 4 children seem to be at odds.Patti uses her column to comment on " sex scandals at work..adultery,group sex..copulation in cubicles/copy rooms..( and about how ) the power of sex ( -in the workplace- can lead to real problems for ) corporate America... ( and speculates what might be the best ) solution to tam(ing) sex in the workplace " because it " is a dangerous problem ( which could lead to law- suits) for sexual harrassment,gender discrimination... or third party actions against the boss " for showing favoritism to his mistress ( if the boss wants his mistress to take care of his load,he has to not be too obvious about it when he favors her )...Think about Yonkers City Councilwoman Pat McDow, the Majority Leader. Apparently she was getting her jollies in the back seat of a city car when a YPD officer pulled up,and,seeing no one in the drivers seat,looked in...only to catch Pat "in the act". TheYonkers P.D. got a demand that the observing officer be sent to Siberia the next day,courtesy of good old Majority Leader Pat McDow. As yet no one has noticed Minority Leader Liam McLoughlin polishing his john handcock under his Council desk...another day and more lawsuits...But the real problem worldwide has to do with feminism and its politically correct nonsense whichimplicitly maintains that it is wrong to be a woman and that everything and anything that makes a woman a woman must be destroyed.Some women are upset about disappointing lovers, abandoned children or a seething inability to find peace -or " happiness ". But I say that happiness can neither be bought nor found. As a matter of fact,true happiness only occurs as a byproduct of something else.And,in a word,that " something else " is best known as contentment. And the best thing about contentment is that you can always work towards it - and,in the working,you will find happiness.But with feminist politically correct nonsense,that will never happen.

Blacks were disenfranchised -- they were, in most of the South, not ALLOWED to vote.

Christian conservatives who lacked a centralized political body representing their interests were "disorganized", not "disenfranchised". The two words are not synonymous.

No it is not different. There is actual and "defacto" disenfranchisement. Actual is when some can't vote, defacto is when voters are ignored as meaningless because "the deal" has already been decided on by both Parties, the big bucks people, and various members of the ruling elite.

For all effects and purposes, the disenfranchisement is the same.99% of the people in the Soviet Union voted and 95% of Iranians do now. It is absolutely irrelevant because the decisions were made by apointed Party members and clerics, respectively.

The black movement, organization, and leadership of people like King and his counterparts, the black rioters - ended their disenfranchisement and got blacks a seat at the deal-making table.

The organization and leadership of the Christian groups ended their disenfranchisement and got them a seat at the table.

Both groups, BTW, still have not done as well as the better-educated and better-moneyed special interests.

"Palladin said: "But, despite all of this, he wasn't an evil person of the sort whose death deserves praise."

You might feel different if Falwell blamed you for 9/11."

First off, my screen name's Palladian. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by this comment. If you were a regular reader here, you'd perhaps be aware that I'm gay. If you read my comments in this and the other post about Falwell's death, you'd see that I certainly didn't approve of him and that I criticized him for the damage he did to both the public discourse and to the Christian faith in America. But in the end, I don't particularly care what some glorified carnival barker has to say about my culpability in the events of 9/11/01. I don't go around having my delicate feelings hurt by the blustering of one sort of blow hard or the other. That's infantile.

There are people of all stripes, from nutty Muslims to stupid faux-liberals to Republican presidential candidates to collegiate socialists all blaming "me" in one way or another for the attacks on 9/11/01. If I got upset and wished each one of them death, it would just be mentally damaging to me.

My advice: grow a thicker skin. There will always be a lot of people who hate and despise you. It's no reason to sully yourself spiritually by hating them back. Defend yourself as necessary, and forget about it.

I agree that the cycle of hate has to stop somewhere, and to restrain from hatred in the instance of Falwell's death is a good test of the moral discipline required.

For me the anger at Falwell is not precisely abstract: many people know his ugly behavior from a distance that allows an easy silence, but he touched my life personally. Falwell conspired to create a world where, at the height of the AIDS horror, when I lived in NYC, and daily saw people on the street with the visible signs of an affliction (which were by definition the signs of death), my wise, straight, middle of the road, Jewish, expensive GP advised me to forego the HIV test, because he was afraid that the consequences of being exposed to the government might be worse than being exposed to the disease. Reasonable people worried about concentration camps for HIV positive people at the time.

Instead of healing, this "Man of God" took a situation fraught with enormous fear and pain, and made it more frightening and painful for me and many others, (please do not discount the power he had at that time) and for this I do not thank him or Ronald Reagan, for that matter.

I do not have to wish him evil, at this point, I don't believe it matters much what I wish him, but I really believe the Mr. Hitchens is showing admirable restraint in choosing his words, and that Falwell was lucky to have offended people who turned the other cheek instead of revenging the pain he caused them and those they loved.

The importance of etiquette or lack thereof among those commenting on his life and death, pales in importance, when compared to the real, live suffering that he caused .

More people today are probably more turned off to Christianity simply because of Falwell's and the Religious Right's incessant desire to have Government define "values" rather than individuals.

This is the key thing about Falwell. Although he exerted a great deal of influence on politics in the 1980s, in the end, he was a complete failure, both strategically and tactically.

-- He railed against gays. Bigotry against gays is dramatically reduced in scope and importance. A much larger percentage of gays live openly "out" than before Falwell. Gay marriage is a fact, except it's called "civil unions" in most states. I know the far-left gays on this site will dispute me, but drop the victimology for five seconds and appreciate how much freer your lives are now than your predecessors a generation ago.

-- Despite three Republican presidents and many years of Republican congressional majorities, Roe v. Wade still stands. Reagan and both Bushes used the abortion issue as boob bait to get votes.

-- Among many of our youth, Christianity is now seen as a hateful religion that enlightened people want no part of. Despite the many good works that churches in America do -- including Falwell's own church -- he has damaged the reputation of the faith and its Book. If you polled 18-29 year olds about what's in the Bible, a huge number would describe it as a right wing tract that condemns gays. I put that on Falwell.

Really, apart from building his own church and college, what has he really accomplished? It's a litany of failure as far as I'm concerned.

R.I.P. Jerry Falwell and condolences to his family and friends. May God take mercy on you for being such a fenderhead for the Lord.

Mike: Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I agree with Pogo that the media (need I say left wing media?) built Falwell up as a boogey man, way beyond his actual influence, to make conservatives look bad. And, as much as I like Hitchens, I think it's unseemly to dance on someone's grave.

"When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain died, early in the Second World War, Churchill delivered his eulogy. Though Chamberlain had turned a deaf ear, for years, to all of Churchill’s warnings that could have prevented that war, Churchill praised him. “He acted with perfect sincerity,” Churchill said. “However the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor when we have done our best.”

Few deserve to be dyseulogized as Hithcens has done; Falwell wasn't one so marked.

As for myself, Falwell and his kind made it easy for me as a young Christian to move from a moderate lefty to a righty 27 years ago. It wasn't long, however, that I came to see Falwell and his champions as detriment to the Right's bigger goals of limited government and a detriment to Christianity as well.

Don't expect the same media that invited Falwell on to make comments they knew/had reason to know would be inflammatory (in lieu of other commentators who could have given more insight/been more charitable) to let the man die without making an issue out of it.

This is what they do. It's in their nature.

Saw HoDean on Colbert last night...he had a couple of swings at Fox News, and I laughed out loud, instantly realizing my other cable news choices are Larry King/Anderson Cooper or Tucker Carlson/Keith Olbermann.

By the way, I read Hitchens' supposedly horrific and tasteless article, and, really, it's hardly that at all. I appreciate Fred Thompson's quotation of Churchill's eulogy for Chamberlain as an admonishment to those who would speak ill of a fallen political enemy, but all Hitchens does here is talk about what the man said, and the influence he had. Is it a lie that Falwell blamed 9/11 on God's punishment of a liberal U.S.? No. I heard him say it myself, and I never heard him retract it.

The comparison with Chamberlain is entirely inapt. Chamberlain was a fool, and millions of deaths lay at his feet, but he was merely mistaken, not evil.

A better comparison would be to whatever Churchill might have said upon the death of Oswald Mosely. If he said anything, I'm sure it was Hitchens-esque.

Let's not forget that Jerry Falwell routinely said that God was punishing gays who died of AIDS.

Really now, cite please.

And by “cite” I mean an actual source that can be cross-referenced – one with a date, an actual source (e.g. interview), an audio/video clip, etc. - and not just some semi-anonymous Falwell-hater posting it on a message board claiming that Jerry Fallwell said it.

“And by “cite” I mean an actual source that can be cross-referenced – one with a date, an actual source (e.g. interview), an audio/video clip, etc. - and not just some semi-anonymous Falwell-hater posting it on a message board claiming that Jerry Fallwell said it.”

The link you provided doesn’t have any of those features. Had Falwell really said that, someone would have been able to give say when and where or had some primary source that went on the record as having interviewed or witnessed Falwell saying that. It’s basically no different than some anonymous person claiming Falwell said something and having other people repeat it because they read someone else repeat it (without any support) that he said. Sort of like how we had national politicians repeating the bogus “dissent is the highest form of patriotism – Thomas Jefferson” line a couple of years ago.

The importance of etiquette or lack thereof among those commenting on his life and death, pales in importance, when compared to the real, live suffering that he caused .

Puh-leeeze. Do you guys even think about the things you write and/or say? Or is waxing hysterical something you do on auto-pilot? All Falwell did was express his theological and biblical views. Almost all of his views were traditional in nature, so by definition they were nothing new and had hitherto been prevalent for centuries or longer. But they were views that he believed were being lost in modern secualar-progressive society. So he expressed them and expressed them firmly. And that's it. He expressed his views. People were of course fully free to take him or leave him. His utterances may not have been liked by some or even by many, but to call that causing "real, live suffering" is melodramatic in the extreme, and an insult to those who truly are in real, live suffering. Besides, in fact and in deed, the evidence about Falwell was decidedly to the contrary about that. He acted with real compassion and giving to the suffering and downtrodden. And I'm betting that on the occasion of the deaths those with whom he disagreed he prayed for them, for their eternal well-being, and for their loved ones and families, and that most definitely he did not dance on their graves. On these bases alone it's a snap to see who was the better man.

There are 1,000's of links to Falwell quotes, with dates and locations, along with many books that provide plenty of verifiable quotes.

And yet when I ask someone for such verification, the only thing I get are alleged “quotes” without any dates, locations, events (e.g. interviews or someone actually claiming to have gone on the record as having heard him say that), or any other method of verifying that he actually said those things.

Curious. It’s almost like some people just repeat these things because it fits the narrative. And if enough people keep reposting what they saw other people post, well it just must be true.

Thorley: I did a quick search using a few of the actual texts in that page of "quotes." No luck; I did Google "Falwell AID" and came up with a 1983 onscreen CBS interview here: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-70-747-4563-10/on_this_day/disasters_tragedies/aids_hysteria

I didnt bother to listen to it because I am not a big supporter of Falwell.

Although your point about establishing provenance seems to be on target.

Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I agree with Pogo that the media (need I say left wing media?) built Falwell up as a boogey man, way beyond his actual influence, to make conservatives look bad

As I noted one of the other threads on this subject, the Southern Baptist Convention -- the largest Protestant denomination in the country -- fell all over itself this last week praising Falwell as a once-in-a-generation hero of the faith whose influence was enormously positive for Christianity.

The notion that he was a fringe figure of little importance to the Religious Right is complete nonsense. The leaders of the Religious Right loved the man and thought he was on the right track.

Re: "The notion that he was a fringe figure of little importance to the Religious Right is complete nonsense."

No, he was in fact important to them. I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise.

I just don't think his actual impact beyond that domain was all that great. Cripes, I ain't thought about him for years. He was just another fat talking head I didn't listen to all that much. Other than providing a comfortable Righty Whitey Christer for the networks to tut-tut about, I don't think anyone else listened much either.

He was kind of the Michael Bolton of TV religion. Bland, and some folks hated him. But you could spend your whole life never thinking about him even once.

As I noted one of the other threads on this subject, the Southern Baptist Convention -- the largest Protestant denomination in the country -- fell all over itself this last week praising Falwell as a once-in-a-generation hero of the faith whose influence was enormously positive for Christianity.

[shrug] I think the NAACP will do the same when Al Sharpton passes. I see a similar pattern in the contribution to politics.

I grew up in Dallas in the 70s as a Methodist. Don't really remember much about Falwell: vague [and probrably unfair] recollection that he was one of those evangelicals who bilked people out of their savings, also a go-to guy for the media when they needed a sensational comment.

Whats more interesting to me is the reaction of his "enemies" to his death. They seem to emulate the very qualities they despised in him.

I think the NAACP will do the same when Al Sharpton passes. I see a similar pattern in the contribution to politics.

I fully intend to pop open a celebratory bottle of beer when Sharpton finally dies, too. When the best thing that can be said of a man and his followers is that they're no worse than Al Sharpton and the NAACP, I think my point's been made. :)

Whats more interesting to me is the reaction of his "enemies" to his death. They seem to emulate the very qualities they despised in him.

In the sense that the Allied bombing of German cities emulated the German bombing of Allied cities. Context matters, don't you think?

Well, it tells me you know very little about Larry Flint. Also tells me that the one man in this group who actually knew Falwell and had tons of reasons for Falwell to hate him, thinks differently than you do. But dont let that get in the way of your own hate.

I know quite a lot about Larry Flynt. And if you know about him as well you'll be aware that he has a long history of mental instability and substance abuse as well as a, shall we say, interesting religious history. There's some pretty convincing evidence he was involved with the mob during his earlier career, too. Then there are the five marriages and -- if you give them credence -- the domestic violence and child sexual abuse allegations by his family members.

Flynt's accomplished a lot, but there's no dodging the fact that he's a *raging* asshole whose morality is questionable on a lot more than sexual issues. So, no, I don't put a lot of faith in his worth as a judge of character.

Heck, take a moment to consider how he judged the character of the Supreme Court -- "eight assholes and a token cunt". If you don't think that's a fair summary, why take his word on Falwell?

Again, per Pogo, the notion that the Religious Right is a powerful force is more media hype than fact.

The religious right comprises a third of the American electorate. No Republican Presidential candidate of the last three decades has achieved the nomination without its approval. It has massive influence in the nomination of Supreme Court justices and even managed to prompt an attempt at a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The occasional claims that we live in a "theocracy" ruled by "Christianists" are hype. The claim that the religious right is the single most influential voting bloc in America, on the other hand, is entirely accurate.

This is why every single Republican presidential candidate -- even Giuliani -- felt the need to praise Falwell and his faith. Yeah, yeah, I know the man just died. But its "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" -- not "if you can't say something nice, kiss the guy's ass".

Maybe so, but I just don't believe it. Do a lot of people self identify as a) religious, and b) conservative? Probably so. But the "Religious Right" as a monolithic voting block. I don't see it. I'm willing to be persuaded, but I'd need data (and data from either the MSM or the Religious Right itself doesn't count).

It has massive influence in the nomination of Supreme Court justices...

Don't see this either. Roberts, Alito. Look moderately conservative to me. Wouldn't the RR want bible thumpers? I don't see any bible thumpers on the court.

...and even managed to prompt an attempt at a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Yeah, how'd that work out?

Boogey Man, I say.

Yeah, yeah, I know the man just died. But its "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"

Yah, I'm reminded of a MSM story on the religious right's political influence: they were doing some kind of documentary, flying around the country to interview the RR leaders at all these satellite offices, and sensed that some of these staffers looked oddly familiar. Turned out the RR was flying the same people into the next city, just ahead of the media, in order to give the appearance of greater numbers and influnce. "Astroturfing" before the term was coined.

It got filibustered, so we'll never know what the votes would have been. The Defense of Marriage Act passed the Senate 85-14 and the House 342-67, though, if that's any help.

That's all I'm sayin'. I'm not praising the man.

The problem, of course, is that basically every right-of-center public figure *is* praising him. Why would they do that unless either (a) they honestly felt that way or (b) they felt a need to suck up to the people who DID respect him? If he was honestly the fringe figure Christians are now spinning him as it would be easy to get away with simply not commenting on his death at all.

The problem, of course, is that basically every right-of-center public figure *is* praising him. Why would they do that unless either (a) they honestly felt that way or (b) they felt a need to suck up to the people who DID respect him?

Well, sucking up is the default position for politicians. It really is. I wouldn't read too much into that.

Rev, just to finish this up, you must know me well enough by now to know that if I actually thought that Falwell and the Religious Right were effective, I'd be manning the ramparts. I just don't fell threatened. On the flip side, I'm sensitive (maybe too sensitive) to being railroaded by the MSM. And, IMHO, that's what's been going on for years.

The problem, of course, is that basically every right-of-center public figure *is* praising him. Why would they do that unless either (a) they honestly felt that way or (b) they felt a need to suck up to the people who DID respect him

I think that has more to do with human nature. I went to an old classmate's funeral, and had to keep from snickering as one person after another got up to say what a kind and loving girl she was. I knew her very well - she was a shallow selfish bitch. And most everyone there was aware of it, despite the praises they heaped on her casket.

What bothers me about all these posts is that they assume Ms. Althouse agrees with them, I doubt it highly and if she does then I really don't see how she could call herself anything but part of the "religious right", which would be preposterous....

Maybe she just adheres to the old tradition of not speaking ill of the dead (with some exceptions, far more egregious than Jerry Falwell). The worst has already happened to them. Without resorting to the idea of eternal hell, it's penance enough for whatever their sins were. Don't censor the record, but be gentle with their memory. It's a good time not to cast the first stone.

Cedarford said... Jerry Falwell, like Martin Luther King, was a man that helped bring tens of millions of people disenfranchised into the political process and gained them rights both parties had ignored."

Aside from Cedarford's further rant against MLKing and avoiding the obvious that Falwell is in no danger of winning a Peace Prize...

Precisely what 10s of millions of people did Falwell's work "franchise" or "gain rights" for? Who did Falwell represent that had a drinking fountain that said "non-Christians only" or a restroom reserved for "non Christians"? Do non-Christians go to "separate but equal" schools? did they pay poll taxes, face literacy tests administered on the 6th Tuesday of the month?

Falwell's tragedy was that he was in a position to do great works and achieve great things - sending his flock foward armed with Christian piety. Instead on too numerous occasions he armed them with hatred and bile.

Hitchens overreaches of course and the idea of dancing on a fresh grave by anyone on anyone's is pretty meanspirited. Just don't pull MLKing into this as a comparison....as there isn't one.

But you knew that cedarford, didn't you....you just want to pump out some bile and render yourself of some hate.

So to calm things, to bring some perspective, some fairness & balance (OOPS that’s Fox News), you supply us with this epitaph for Falwell:

"Falwell's tragedy was that ... on too numerous (sic) occasions he armed [his flock] with hatred and bile."

Glad you straightened us out bile-wise & hatred-wise.

And you mock cedarford’s rather incontrovertible statement about the Rev Falwell’s having :

“helped bring tens of millions of people disenfranchised into the political process and gained them rights both parties had ignored."

by oversimplifying the issue to “not barred from voting”.

You missed all the snob MSM & Right-Thinking People caricatures of these ordinary people as Jeeter Lesters, Willie Starks, & Elmer Gantrys? This disenfranchisement of thought; of speech? Quite simply, Falwell helped religious believers whose idea of religion was not the right stuff find a place in politics, in the public debate. And, yes, you may sneer at them, & balk at cedarford’s use of “franchise”, but in this age of communication, Falwell made sure that “attention was paid” to them.

OK, the Rev stayed too long at the fair & became a caricature, a Saturday-Nite-Live imitation of himself, resurfacing to say extremely stupid things, all conflated by the MSM, with, shall we say, religious fervor, into the Holy Grail: a sound bite capturing the epitome of the hateful ravings of the VRWC’s religious division. Ha Ha.

DewaveHe said ... that 9/11 was the result of America behaving badly, that Jews were doomed ...

That Falwell. Always echoing liberal talking points!

Great comment. I’ve sent it around to my friends as an example of plagiarism! (No lawyers need reply.)

Pogo

I like your neologism:

"dyseulogized".

As has been acknowledged in this thread, in the MSM, um, dystopia, its obits of certified MSM bad guys maximize such guys’ dysfunction & minimize the good whereas its obits of certified MSM good guys maximize the good & minimize the dysfunction. That is, when it acknowledges any flaws in its good guys & any good in its bad ones. As Antony might say in his eulogy of a MSM guy: "But he was an honorable man; So are they all, all honorable men".

The MSM obit: the final & fashionable farewell forensic, a sermon designed especially for loony know-nothing secular fundamentalists & nominally religious liberals to ensure that the MSM controls history. When a religious member of the VRWC is the subject, the particular bible which must be slavishly followed in such philippic is the “crazy fanatical deceased as the mirror image of Osama Bin Laden”.

That’s why the MSM does these obits, hagiography for their friends & demonology for their enemies: to make sure that the former are remembered either as Profiles in Courage or, as a fall-back as outspoken Progressives who may’ve pushed the envelope now & then & the latter are remembered as “knaves or fools”, relegated to the “dustbin of history”.

Thus the Revs Jackson & Sharpton will have to be remembered in any MSM True Believer’s “Top 100” list of Really Important Positive People of the late 20th Century & Revs Falwell & Dobson will have to go down the memory hole.